• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Cleveland Cavaliers Summer League 2019

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Ozone said:
^ the way I see it Garland may have been considered the best player right now who also has a high upside so that's why he was taken regardless of fit etc but I don't agree he is the true best player long term if some of these riskier low floor picks reach their potentials. So did they really take the BPA? not necessarily.
I just think Garland makes a lot of sense for other teams who are lacking that type of player but to suggest his value was 4th by most orgs when Atlanta easily outbid said teams to get Hunter at 4 and then the Cavs took the guy everyone wanted at 4 one pick later and didn't shop him could only mean he really isn't the bpa at 4 or 5 or who knows unless they picked him to flip him and so if he isn't moved then his value isn't as high as you think not if he is.
Sekou and Reddish both have much higher ceilings defensively and so despite neither being as advanced offensively doesn't make them lesser options long term. Hell even Hayes with elite rim running ability could prove to be more valuable
Click to expand...

Sekou and Reddish both have higher defensive ceilings in a offensive league. Sekou is Siakam at best. I'm not even sure I have a comp for Reddish some people say George but he was terrible at Duke. ATL is putting him in that same off ball role he failed at in college. Also Hayes really?

If every player hits their peak who would you rather have a Damian Lillard type, a Siakam type, again Idk what Reddishs peak is he needs the ball but at Duke and now ATL he's gonna be used as a catch and shoot player, or a DeAndre Jordan type?
 
Ozone said:
^ the way I see it Garland may have been considered the best player right now who also has a high upside so that's why he was taken regardless of fit etc but I don't agree he is the true best player long term if some of these riskier low floor picks reach their potentials. So did they really take the BPA? not necessarily.
I just think Garland makes a lot of sense for other teams who are lacking that type of player but to suggest his value was 4th by most orgs when Atlanta easily outbid said teams to get Hunter at 4 and then the Cavs took the guy everyone wanted at 4 one pick later and didn't shop him could only mean he really isn't the bpa at 4 or 5 or who knows unless they picked him to flip him and so if he isn't moved then his value isn't as high as you think not if he is.
Sekou and Reddish both have much higher ceilings defensively and so despite neither being as advanced offensively doesn't make them lesser options long term. Hell even Hayes with elite rim running ability could prove to be more valuable
Click to expand...

Wow your assumptions are crazy. Yes Cam probably has the highest celling outside of big 3, but his metrics were awful for allot of the teams that are metric centrists thus undraftable for some.

Just because you think others are better than Garland doesn't mean the Cavs did. Time will tell if your draft opinion is correct, but the Cavs didn't draft him to trade him. Now we have a ton of expiring contracts, yes he can be included in a trade, but your are just making some huge leaps of logic and it is wearing thin on the board. Try understand how this place operates, crazy assumptions based in nothing and a continuance to defend yourself to the level of annoyance will get you banned.
 
Lee said:
Allot of us on here are draft junkies, myself included. This means we read a ton of opinions by professionals, scouts and GM's.

This draft was generally about the big 3. Zion was #1 on everyone's list, maybe the most consensus number 1 since Lebron.

With that said, I assure you that only 1 player frequently came up in professional opinion as a possible player better than Morant and/or Reddish and that is Garland.

Personally I am very high on Morant, so I don't agree, but a decent amount of pro scouts did. I am not saying Garland becomes an all star pg, but I am saying 100% he was the 4th highest ranked player in this draft if you take a poll of the pros.

The cavs went BPA regardless of fit. Do the research yourself. Not on his tape, just on opinion pre draft. Than do some research on Michigan basketball the last 10 years, Beilein loves a 2 pg system.

You are really making some crazy assumptions based on nothing. I am hoping this isn't you doing the slow troll, but at this point that is what it is looking like.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am not trolling, I just was more impressed with players I got a larger sample size to analyze than 5 games, and although I want to believe he will contribute to the Cavs being a better team , the fact they didn't add any improvement on defense given all the rumors they wanted Hunter is the main reason for my assumption they took garland to flip him for a defensive presence . At this point I am starting to accept I may be barking up the wrong tree and the Cavs org may have relied to much on stats from HS and analytic projections than other more reliable measurement tools for projecting upside but mostly made the pick for fit in Beileins 2 pg sets instead of taking the true BPA even if garland was projected as being just that from such a small sample size
 
Ozone said:
^ the way I see it Garland may have been considered the best player right now who also has a high upside so that's why he was taken regardless of fit etc but I don't agree he is the true best player long term if some of these riskier low floor picks reach their potentials. So did they really take the BPA? not necessarily.
I just think Garland makes a lot of sense for other teams who are lacking that type of player but to suggest his value was 4th by most orgs when Atlanta easily outbid said teams to get Hunter at 4 and then the Cavs took the guy everyone wanted at 4 one pick later and didn't shop him could only mean he really isn't the bpa at 4 or 5 or who knows unless they picked him to flip him and so if he isn't moved then his value isn't as high as you think not if he is.
Sekou and Reddish both have much higher ceilings defensively and so despite neither being as advanced offensively doesn't make them lesser options long term. Hell even Hayes with elite rim running ability could prove to be more valuable
Click to expand...

Forget about defense, forget about rim running, forget about rebounding, forget about all of it.

The most valuable skill in the NBA is and will always be the ability to make shots at an efficient level without having being set up by a teammate.

If a player can do that from all three levels and draw fouls, that's even better.

If a player can do that AND competently defend, that's ideal.

But make no mistake, efficient shot making is the No. 1 skill.
 
I posted this in another thread Bill Hodges (Larry Bird's college coach) and I talked at great lengths when he coached at Mercer and he was adamant that defense can be taught but natural shooting and playmaking is a gift.
 
Ozone said:
Yeah I am not trolling, I just was more impressed with players I got a larger sample size to analyze than 5 games, and although I want to believe he will contribute to the Cavs being a better team , the fact they didn't add any improvement on defense given all the rumors they wanted Hunter is the main reason for my assumption they took garland to flip him for a defensive presence . At this point I am starting to accept I may be barking up the wrong tree and the Cavs org may have relied to much on stats from HS and analytic projections than other more reliable measurement tools for projecting upside but mostly made the pick for fit in Beileins 2 pg sets instead of taking the true BPA even if garland was projected as being just that from such a small sample size
Click to expand...

You cant use HS stats in metrics, allot of metric junkies here too. They viewed a shit load of his tape. One thing to remember is teams have a dozen people who do this full time. Means they spent 100's of hours on all the players over the last few months, amazing amount of time.

Personally I think this leads to over analysis at times on the players, but rumors from our proven inside sources were coming out that the team loved Garland. These sources have been proven true inside sources over the last decade.

This leads to one conclusion, the Cavs had Garland very high on the board, maybe as high as #2, but for sure higher than the slot they picked at thus the willingness to take back to back pg's and see how it shakes out.
 
I don't understand how people are worried about garlands sample size, especially when Kyrie played about the same amount of games before we drafted him.
 
Ozone said:
Yeah I am not trolling, I just was more impressed with players I got a larger sample size to analyze than 5 games, and although I want to believe he will contribute to the Cavs being a better team , the fact they didn't add any improvement on defense given all the rumors they wanted Hunter is the main reason for my assumption they took garland to flip him for a defensive presence . At this point I am starting to accept I may be barking up the wrong tree and the Cavs org may have relied to much on stats from HS and analytic projections than other more reliable measurement tools for projecting upside but mostly made the pick for fit in Beileins 2 pg sets instead of taking the true BPA even if garland was projected as being just that from such a small sample size
Click to expand...
You know, personally, I loved Culver.

I thought Culver was the best player available from my own scouting based largely on his two-way potential and ability to facilitate. I, along with others, believed there was a case to be made that he was even the third best prospect in the draft. This even ignores the fact that he was essentially a tailor-made fit with Sexton on the wing.

That said, all I have access to are his games and reading 2nd hand information on his character. Also, I’m no professional—I’m a fan.

The Cavs scouting department and front office work out all of these guys. The resources and tape hours are essentially infinite.

If the Cavs believe Darius Garland to be BPA, who am I to argue? I’m going to trust it. Meanwhile, watching him, I definitely see what they saw in him, even if I was an unabashed Culver supporter. Frankly, my knowledge pales in comparison to what they know.

Thus, I’m going to recognize that it’s not about fit at this point in time and hope the organization picked the player with the highest likelihood of being a star, regardless of position.

As I said before, if Sexton and Garland both become great guards but they don’t seem to fit long term, fine. That’s a good problem to have. At that point, you deal one with sky-high trade value. Until that point, just enjoy them on the floor together offensively.
 
Out of the Rafters at the Q said:
Well, I'm just happy another organization took him. @I'mWithDan has some good stats for you if you're looking for a historical perspective on Cam Reddish. Besides "looking the part" he has nothing else going for him. His production has been absolutely awful.
Click to expand...

My best analogy for my personal scouting philosophy is tournament no limit poker. Through this lens, I think it’s easier to more objectively think about all prospects.

Reddish isn’t necessarily a bad prospect but you need the right stack, at the right time of the tournament, to take a gamble on him. So like pocket 4’s or something.

Atlanta is a great fit because they have already done an amazing job building their team and if they miss on Reddish, it’s not consequential.....but if they hit, it’s found money they can just add to their stack.

At this point, the Cavs are just grinding out asset accumulation, trying to find an opportunity to double up. In that situation, it’s just tougher for me to play prospect hands like pocket 4’s. Some people will disagree with that but you have to consider front office tenure like a poker tournament. There is a finite amount of time and the further you get, the more crippling decisions become.
 
thedarkness2332 said:
You know, personally, I loved Culver.

I thought Culver was the best player available from my own scouting based largely on his two-way potential and ability to facilitate. I, along with others, believed there was a case to be made that he was even the third best prospect in the draft. This even ignores the fact that he was essentially a tailor-made fit with Sexton on the wing.

That said, all I have access to are his games and reading 2nd hand information on his character. Also, I’m no professional—I’m a fan.

The Cavs scouting department and front office work out all of these guys. The resources and tape hours are essentially infinite.

If the Cavs believe Darius Garland to be BPA, who am I to argue? I’m going to trust it. Meanwhile, watching him, I definitely see what they saw in him, even if I was an unabashed Culver supporter. Frankly, my knowledge pales in comparison to what they know.

Thus, I’m going to recognize that it’s not about fit at this point in time and hope the organization picked the player with the highest likelihood of being a star, regardless of position.

As I said before, if Sexton and Garland both become great guards but they don’t seem to fit long term, fine. That’s a good problem to have. At that point, you deal one with sky-high trade value. Until that point, just enjoy them on the floor together offensively.
Click to expand...

I feel the same.

I personally thought Culver had a great chance of becoming a Jimmy Butler type all-star wing. A wing who can score and create offense for others. But as much as I liked him, even I could admit there's a much bigger level of projection at play with Culver's shooting developing compared to a guy like Garland.

Efficient shotmaking is still key. There just aren't many guys in the NBA who can make threes off the dribble at a high level.
 
CBBI said:
Forget about defense, forget about rim running, forget about rebounding, forget about all of it.

The most valuable skill in the NBA is and will always be the ability to make shots at an efficient level without having being set up by a teammate.

If a player can do that from all three levels and draw fouls, that's even better.

If a player can do that AND competently defend, that's ideal.

But make no mistake, efficient shot making is the No. 1 skill.
Click to expand...

Just want to say...none of the Raptors were good or great bucket-getters at the college level. All were good or great defenders at the college level. Now, I think that's a little bit of a coincidence...it's not like you should *only* draft good defensive players and hope their offense improves. But that's at least as viable a strategy as drafting great scorers and hoping their defense improves. I don't think there's any "No. 1 skill" to look for in prospects.
 
Nathan S said:
Just want to say...none of the Raptors were good or great bucket-getters at the college level. All were good or great defenders at the college level. Now, I think that's a little bit of a coincidence...it's not like you should *only* draft good defensive players and hope their offense improves. But that's at least as viable a strategy as drafting great scorers and hoping their defense improves. I don't think there's any "No. 1 skill" to look for in prospects.
Click to expand...

I guess if given the choice, I would always skew towards "draft a scorer and hope his defense improves" over "draft a defender and hope his offense improves".

But you're right that there's a lot of ways to skin the cat.
 
thedarkness2332 said:
It’s interesting that we’re involved in the Salt Lake City league.

Usually, you don’t see us until Vegas.

I like it, a chance for Coach Beilein to get the young guys together early.
Click to expand...

Hopefully KPJ trade gets announced mid week so he can play in Utah. Otherwise it's gonna be Windler and some Gleague talent most likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top